State v. Martinez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, v. GILBERT ANTHONY MARTINEZ, Appellant. DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/12/2010 RUTH WILLINGHAM, ACTING CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0305 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR2006-048077-002 DT The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Yvette Gray, Attorney at Law by Yvette C. Gray Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 738 This is an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969). Counsel for Defendant Gilbert Anthony Martinez has advised us that, after searching the entire record, she has been unable to discover any arguable questions of law, and has filed a brief requesting us to conduct an Anders review of the record. Defendant was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and has not filed one. FACTS 1 ¶2 the This is a home invasion offense that occurred during evening of February 13, 2006. Defendant and two other people went to the victim s house, held him at gunpoint and stole guns, truck. ¶3 jewelry, a briefcase, and the victim s pick-up They left in the truck and a red passenger vehicle. Because the victim s truck had LoJack tracking technology, the police quickly located the truck. Defendant was not in the truck, but was in the nearby red car. Defendant and the others were arrested, a search warrant was issued and the victim s property was recovered from the red car. ¶4 Defendant was charged with armed robbery, kidnapping, burglary in transportation. the first degree, and theft of means of All were charged as dangerous offenses except the theft of means of transportation. The jury found Defendant guilty on all the charges except kidnapping. 1 After finding that We review the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. See State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 Defendant had four prior felony convictions, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of 15.75 years for the armed robbery, a dangerous offense, and burglary in the first degree, a dangerous offense, and 11.25 years for theft of means of transportation. He received 8 days of presentence incarceration credit. ¶5 to Defendant appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant Article Arizona 6, Section Revised 9, Statutes of the Arizona ( A.R.S. ) Constitution, sections and 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 and -4033(A)(1) (2010). DISCUSSION ¶6 We have read and considered counsel s brief, and have searched the entire record for reversible error. Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at 881. See Leon, 104 We find none. All of the proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant was The record, as presented, reveals that represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. CONCLUSION ¶7 After this to represent obligation decision has Defendant been in this filed, appeal counsel s has ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Defendant of the status of the appeal and Defendant s future 3 options, unless counsel s review reveals an issue appropriate for submission Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 585, 684 P.2d to the See State v. 154, 157 (1984). Defendant can, if desired, file a motion for reconsideration or petition for review pursuant to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ¶8 Accordingly, we affirm Defendant s convictions sentences. /s/ ___________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge 4 and
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
